Alexander's Marshals

A Study of the Makedonian Aristocracy and the Politics of Military Leadership

Waldemar Heckel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317389217
• Edition: 2
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

This substantially revised and updated second edition of The Marshals of Alexander's Empire (1992) examines Alexander's most important officers, who commanded army units and were involved in military and political deliberations. Chapters on these men have been expanded, giving greater attention to personalities, bias in the sources, and the social as well as military setting, including more on familial connections and regional origins in an attempt to create a better understanding of factions. The major confrontations, military and political, are treated in greater detail within the biographies, and a discussion of the organization and command structure of the Makedonian army has been added.

Part I

1 The house of Attalos

In 331, the last attested member of the house of Attalos died on the battlefield of Gaugamela, though the family continued to play a role in Alexander historiography. Hegelochos son of Hippostratos was perhaps the most important Makedonian to die in that battle, and yet the fact of his death was recorded only in passing, in a different context, and not noted in accounts of the battle itself.¹ Nevertheless, the names of both Attalos and Hegelochos resurface in the drama of the following years, when the political tensions at the Court and in the camp revealed once again the implacable hatred of Alexander for Attalos in particular. In spite of the family’s impact on the political and military events of the 330s, its history must be pieced together from scattered references and with a fair amount of conjecture.

Attalos uncle of Kleopatra-Eurydike

Judeich, Kl. Studien 302, 304–5; Kaerst, RE s.v. “Attalos (4)”; Berve II, 94 no. 182; Bosworth 1971a: 102 ff.; Schachermeyr, Alexander 97; Heckel, Who’s Who 62 “Attalus [1]”; Hatzopoulos 2005; Tataki, Macedonians Abroad 273–4 no. 322; Müller, Maβnahmen 40–2; Worthington, Philip 176–8; Howe 2015a.

The giver of the bride

Attalos was clearly a prominent Makedonian, although his patronymic and regional origin are unknown. He was born, perhaps, as early as 390 and was the uncle of both Philip’s seventh wife, Kleopatra, and her brother Hippostratos, and thus a brother of Amyntas.² By the time of Kleopatra’s wedding to Philip II in the autumn of 337,³ both her father and brother had died, leaving Attalos as the bride’s guardian. Nothing is known of his career before the niece’s marriage, which may in fact have been the source of his influence at Court (

Diod. 16.93.7).⁴ The assertion that “Philip was acting at the behest of an influential group of nobles, headed by Attalos and his father-in-law Parmenio,” when he married Kleopatra is mere speculation.⁵ Attalos’ importance could be more easily determined, if we knew the date of his own marriage to Parmenion’s daughter: did it occur before or after Philip took his last wife?⁶ Elizabeth Carney suggests that “Philip may have chosen a wife from Attalos’s family to avoid the divisiveness that would ensue if he took a bride from the families of either Parmenio or Antipater. . . .”⁷ This is an interesting suggestion, and indeed Parmenion and Antipatros both had daughters of marriageable age. But the argument fails to take into account the fact that at this time Philip, unlike Alexander in 336–334, was under no apparent pressure to take another bride;⁸ Philip could just as easily have arranged for Alexander to marry Attalos’ ward—and the sources state explicitly that Philip’s last marriage was a love match, differentiating between it and others that were influenced by political considerations.⁹ Even if he had been concerned about a shortage of suitable heirs, his timing and approach to the matter were clearly at fault. Too much has been read into Attalos’ prayer at the wedding feast, that Kleopatra might produce legitimate heirs to the Makedonian throne.¹⁰ That was the tactless remark of a drunken man, and ultimately fatal: Alexander never forgave him and considered him a threat to his life (Curt. 8.8.7; cf. 6.9.17).

Attalos and Pausanias of Orestis

According to Diodorus, Attalos was a friend of a certain Pausanias, who had supplanted his namesake from Orestis as Philip’s eromenos.¹¹ This young man confided to him the details of insults uttered by Pausanias of Orestis and his own plans for a glorious death (Diod. 16.93.5), which he soon realized in a battle with the Illyrians of King Pleurias, probably in early 336. Not long afterwards, Attalos avenged his friend’s death by plying Pausanias of Orestis with wine at a dinner party and handing him over to his muleteers to be gang raped.¹² By this time, Attalos had been designated one of the generals of the advance force that was to cross into Asia (Diod. 16.93.8–9). When Pausanias petitioned Philip II for justice, the king was unwilling to act because of Attalos’ important role in the launching of the Asiatic campaign and on account of their familial relationship (cf. 16.93.8). Attalos thus went unpunished, and Pausanias avenged himself by killing the man who seemed to condone the crime.¹³

M.B. Hatzopoulos puts a new twist on Diodorus’ account of Philip’s death. He too equates the Illyrian campaign against Pleurias with that against Pleuratos (which he dates to 345), in which Philip suffered a serious collarbone injury. He notes similarities between the campaign described by Diodorus and that against Pleuratos. But most of these are so general as to be useless—the campaigns were both against the Illryians, they involved invasions of Illyria by Philip, the King’s life was in danger and one of his men was killed (2005: 54–5). Only the similarity of the two names of the Illyrian kings deserves attention.¹⁴

This is followed by the mind-boggling assertion: “It is difficult to escape the obvious conclusion that the real name of the bodyguard heroically dead was Hippostratos” (55: emphasis added). First of all, Hippostratos (whose death is mentioned in a fragment of Marsyas of Pella, FGrH 135/6 F17) is not described as a member of the bodyguard. The fragment merely states that 150 of the hetairoi (presumably the Companion Cavalry) were wounded and that Hippostratos was killed. Hatzopoulos attempts to link the hetairoi with guardsmen by referring to Theopompos (FGrH 115 F348; cf. Morison, BNJ), who says the pezhetairoi acted as doryphoroi. But it is most likely that these troops were the ones later known as hypaspistai (something that is clear from the nature of their recruitment).

Hatzopoulos continues: there was some argument about who was responsible for Hippostratos’ death and the blame must have fallen on Pausanias, who was subsequently sexually violated at the instigation of Attalos and Kleopatra (“as revenge for his alleged responsibility for the death of Hippostratos,” who was Kleopatra’s brother, 56). Not only is there no shred of evidence for this “obvious conclusion,” but it is complicated by the fact that Hatzopoulos accepts the testimony of Justin (9.6.5) that Pausanias was raped “in the early years of puberty” (in primis pubertatis annis). Now how it is that the thirteen-year-old Pausanias was fighting among Philip’s elite pezhetairoi and could be held responsible for Hippostratos’ death he does not say. Furthermore, he follows this with the allegation that Philip fell in love with Kleopatra because he “felt responsible for the death of Hippostratos” (56). Finally, Plutarch (Alex. 10.6) says that the outrage against Pausanias had been sanctioned by Attalos and Kleopatra (Παυσανίας Ἀττάλου γνώμῃ καὶ Κλεοπάτρας ὑβρισθείς). If it occurred, as Hatzopoulos contends, in 345/4, then Kleopatra (according to most estimates of her age) would have been between eight and ten years old at the time. It is more likely that the events—the Illyrian campaign, the rape of Pausanias, and the murder of Philip II—occurred in rapid succession, just as Diodorus reports.

The Asian campaign and the death of Attalos

Attalos crossed the Hellespont at the beginning of the spring of 336, sharing command with Parmenion and Amyntas;¹⁵ he had, some time before, married Parmenion’s daughter.¹⁶ Their force of 10,000 advanced as far as Magnesia-on-the-Maiandros, where they were caught off guard and defeated with heavy losses by Memnon the Rhodian and forced to withdraw inside the city walls.¹⁷ On the news of Philip’s death, Attalos plotted rebellion,¹⁸ trusting in his popularity with the troops and communicating with the anti-Makedonian party in Athens.¹⁹ Whether he was in fact guilty is a moot point; for Alexander the charge sufficed to justify his murder.²⁰ Judeich regards the Makedonian movement north from Magnesia to the Hellespont as part of Attalos’ plan to overthrow Alexander at home.²¹ This implies that Parmenion was either subordinate to Attalos or a willing accomplice in his scheme, neither of which is likely. Hekataios was sent to secure his execution, which he could not have effected without Parmenion’s complicity. Whatever the old general’s personal feelings towards his son-in-law, he acted quickly and decisively for his own political gain.²² Justin’s claim (11.5.1) that Alexander, before his departure for Asia, killed all Kleopatra’s relatives whom Philip had placed in positions of power is nothing more than rhetorical exaggeration, and refers only to Attalos. In fact, the new King may even have made an attempt at reconciliation by promoting Hegelochos to higher military office.²³

...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• List of abbreviations
• Map of Alexander's empire
• Introduction
• Part I
• Part II The instruments of power
• Appendices
• Stemmata
• References
• Index